Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit Tax Returns

[danielpalos]

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

It is a public office. You don't have to run for it.

That's not how a Constitutional right to privacy works.

lol. there is no right to privacy in a Public office.

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

 

[pknopp]

Because it's private.

It is a public office. You don't have to run for it.

That's not how a Constitutional right to privacy works.

lol. there is no right to privacy in a Public office.

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

 

[Care4all]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?

This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.

 

[iceberg]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?

This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.

like i said - just hold the line on this spit into a tornado when it comes around and hits you too.

but i've yet to see either side play some ***** ass shit like this and it not just set precedence for a "hold my beer" moment OF WHICH beings you trump in the end.

you'd think people would stop putting their hand back into the fire to profess so much to hate.

 

[iceberg]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - **** the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

I want to see Pelosi’s returns...
She is in the line of succession to become president

i'd much rather see her exits and staying out.

 

[iceberg]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Like I said, I think the State will have the burden of proving this requirement is necessary for efficiency purposes, rather than an attempt to advance a political football.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

they can't win. i know the left thinks this is a clever move and are already putting extra sugar on their cheerios and will tell you it's just for the good of the system. why all the passive-aggressive bullshit? so friggin annoying.

but again - if they succeed in setting this as a valid move, you'll see every state out there doing something to keep viable candidates out of their state and after that - dogs and cats sleeping together chaos ensues.

OWE - fire still hot. OWE. still

OWE...

 

[Care4all]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

 

[Darkwind]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

Then why do it?

 

[Care4all]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?

This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.

like i said - just hold the line on this spit into a tornado when it comes around and hits you too.

but i've yet to see either side play some ***** ass shit like this and it not just set precedence for a "hold my beer" moment OF WHICH beings you trump in the end.

you'd think people would stop putting their hand back into the fire to profess so much to hate.

We've never had a candidate that refused to show his taxes as Trump before either, at least not for the past 4 decades or so.... most voters, know no other standard...

 

[Issa]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?

 

[Care4all]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - **** the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

I want to see Pelosi’s returns...
She is in the line of succession to become president

i'd much rather see her exits and staying out.

She's a good speaker of the House, certainly better than Ryan and Boehner were imho.

 

[Care4all]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

Then why do it?

Because they want to keep the standard that has been there for the past 40 years for candidates. Candidate Trump is the one that broke that standard, now making it a free for all for all other candidates.... and they do not want to see this happen with any candidate again, and in the future.

But it truly would not affect President Trump, with it being California....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

It's gerrymandering, it disfranshied (spl?) California voters

Damn again what's next California says you can only run for president if you can run a four minute mile

It targets Trump specifically...


It's more childish games by the democrats, tit for tat/lowering the bar some more.

 

[MAGAman]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Fascists tactics amuse the Leftards.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Fascists tactics amuse the Leftards.

That explains why I find your post so funny

 

[bripat9643]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

States Rights

Lincoln ended states rights in 1861

 

[bripat9643]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?

This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.

They all have to do with facilitating the election process. None of them are arbitrary constraints designed to foster a political outcome.

 

[Care4all]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

It's gerrymandering, it disfranshied (spl?) California voters

Damn again what's next California says you can only run for president if you can run a four minute mile

It targets Trump specifically...


It's more childish games by the democrats, tit for tat/lowering the bar some more.

Requiring tax returns to be shown for Presidential candidates, is NOT some off the wall new standard.... it has been the standard for 4 decades or more.... people voting no know other standard. It does relate to the presidency, unlike a four minute mile. Trump BROKE that standard, California did NOT?

Why does EVERYTHING, every rule, every standard, every protocol, NOT have to be followed by Trump? Nepotism, tax returns, security clearances, vetting of Admin and Cabinet positions, emoluments clause etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

this guy is such a pansy... everything has to be changed for him.... he's just so special.... special needs is more like it! special snowflake is also more like it.

Enough is enough, he needs to man up, stop lying, and put his big boy pants on.

What the hell is he trying to hide from us, after lying and telling ALL OF US THAT HE WOULD RELEASE HIS TAXES, once the audit was done....

No one can get this chronic liar to ever tell the truth, about anything. I don't trust him, and YOU shouldn't either imho!

 

[bripat9643]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?

The only point of this law is to screen out Republicans who have never held elective office.

 

[Issa]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?

The only point of this law is to screen out Republicans who have never held elective office.

I'm talking in general...why are you against vetting politicians ? Why are you against vetting trump even more to see if he is a corrupt or not ?